6. Japan: Alonso loses possible 18 points, Vettel gains 18 points from him. I'm not sure that I can even count this one as bad luck only, as it was ruled as racing incident but someone can accuse me of being unfair, so I'm including it.

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

In total: Alonso gains 29 points to Vettel from luck. I'm not counting the points Massa gifted to him in USA and Brasil (at least 10 more), while Webber wasn't at all helpful at that stage of the championship.

Note: I'm not saying Alonso didn't have a great season. It was maybe his best, but without his luck, he would have lost the title long before Brazil. My analysis is very conservative as you can see in bold above.

Note2: Hamilton had the worst luck from everybody, it's unbelievable how bad it was, nobody can deny that.

Obviously RB was faster than Ferrari in most of the races (but not all) and if they were the first and second fastest team, it would've meant a lot (7 pts difference between the first and second). But McLarens were even faster than RB, ensuring that Alonso lost at most 3 pts per race when his car was third fastest (and in many tracks it was second fastest, not 3rd fastest). That is because usualy one of the McLarens self-destructed and the 2nd drivers in RB and Ferrari were nowhere most of the time.

Last edited by superuser on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

These guys are not playing cards, it has nothing to do with luck. Reliability is a part of the sport so this analisis is lacking objectivity.

Hm, so the Ferrari wasn't that bad after all? Because it wasn't that fast but it wasn't that fragile either. Maybe, just maybe, the WCC reflect the car strength reasonably well (considering both the reliability and the speed). So Alonso had the 2nd best (not fastest) car in season and finished 2nd. Logical, isn't it?

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

By the same token a slower car has nothing to do with "luck" either. It's about Ferrari not being able to build a car that that can compete speed-wise. It's not just about the driver but also the team.

And yet many fans, including Alonso seem to consider Vettel lucky for having a fast car.

All you hear is how Alonso challenged for the title with a slow car and Vettel was barely able to win it in a fast car. You don't hear people saying Alonso had the most reliable car on the grid and still lost to Vettel.

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

By the same token a slower car has nothing to do with "luck" either. It's about Ferrari not being able to build a car that that can compete speed-wise. It's not just about the driver but also the team.

And yet many fans, including Alonso seem to consider Vettel lucky for having a fast car.

All you hear is how Alonso challenged for the title with a slow car and Vettel was barely able to win it in a fast car. You don't hear people saying Alonso had the most reliable car on the grid and still lost to Vettel.

Have you ever heard the phrase "if you want to finish first, you first have to FINISH" A slow and reliable car can finish a race, an unreliable car cant thats the difference

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

By the same token a slower car has nothing to do with "luck" either. It's about Ferrari not being able to build a car that that can compete speed-wise. It's not just about the driver but also the team.

And yet many fans, including Alonso seem to consider Vettel lucky for having a fast car.

All you hear is how Alonso challenged for the title with a slow car and Vettel was barely able to win it in a fast car. You don't hear people saying Alonso had the most reliable car on the grid and still lost to Vettel.

Have you ever heard the phrase "if you want to finish first, you first have to FINISH" A slow and reliable car can finish a race, an unreliable car cant thats the difference

pretty much yes, and we could add the failures mclaren had in austin with button, or else he would have come 3d in that race if not messing out in qualy, and how the mclarens weren't up to the game in korea and india, anyway luck is up there for the man to grab, either Alonso or Vettel both had a bit of luck and they made the most of it,

You cant make such analysis. At least not accurate one.There are lots of variables not concerned. What about McLaren misfortunes that gifted points potentially to Vettel or Alonso. Abu dhabi again, why consider it as a bad luck. It was team error. A mistake, technical one. That is their fault. And Hamilton retiring actually benefited both Alonso and Vettel.Then there are Webber KERS issues that had impact on both. And mistakes made by Williams and Sauber drivers having impact as well.Then should we also start taking into consideration how easy TR made it for RedBull to lap or overtake into picture potentially making it easier for them to gain points and others to lose points? This is endless and pointless to be honest.

In the end, the luck factor balances out. There was never a better example of it than 2012 season.

That saying has never made sense to me. Sometimes you can position yourself in such a way that you can salvage a situation or gain an advantage. Sometimes you can drive with a sympathy that will cause you less failures, or an attitude that will help keep you out of trouble. You can certainly prepare to the point you're leaving very little to luck. But that's not making your own luck, that's making the right judgement calls and doing all you can. Actual luck is something you have no control over. Ultimately there's nothing you can do if someone is intent on Grosjeaning you at the first turn from 8 places away, or the mechanic drops a wheelnut when you're bang on your marks, or the alternator fails when you're leading rather than when you're 6th.

I can believe luck evens itself out and that the right preperation, attitude and decisions can overcome any number of instances we might (erroneously) describe as luck. But you can't make your own luck.

Sorry, that phrase has just always bugged me! I'll shut up about it now.

mcdo wrote:

The one man that was repeatedly in position to pounce when his rivals faltered was Fernando Alonso. And that is why he was the standout competitor of 2012.

Completely agree.

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

By the same token a slower car has nothing to do with "luck" either. It's about Ferrari not being able to build a car that that can compete speed-wise. It's not just about the driver but also the team.

And yet many fans, including Alonso seem to consider Vettel lucky for having a fast car.

All you hear is how Alonso challenged for the title with a slow car and Vettel was barely able to win it in a fast car. You don't hear people saying Alonso had the most reliable car on the grid and still lost to Vettel.

Have you ever heard the phrase "if you want to finish first, you first have to FINISH" A slow and reliable car can finish a race, an unreliable car cant thats the difference

Yes, I've heard it before. But what's your point?

My point is that if you make a car as fast as the light that only lasts 10 laps each race will never win the championship, this has got nothing to do with bad luck, doy ou understand that?

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

If there's no rhyme or reason to how and when a component fails there's huge scope for luck. If three fail over the course of the year, all on the same guy's car, he's unlucky, the other driver is lucky. If they all fail in races he's leading, never when he's in the pack, he's unlucky. If they all fail on the car of the guy in the title hunt, never on the number 2's car, the team and the driver are unlucky. To say the team should have made their own luck by ensuring they had such a complete understanding of every component on the car that failure is no longer an option is unrealistic at best. Until it's feasible to eliminate all failures and develop a complete and flawless understanding of the technology used, luck will play a part.

_________________Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-Epicurus

You cant make such analysis. At least not accurate one.There are lots of variables not concerned. What about McLaren misfortunes that gifted points potentially to Vettel or Alonso. Abu dhabi again, why consider it as a bad luck. It was team error. A mistake, technical one. That is their fault. And Hamilton retiring actually benefited both Alonso and Vettel.Then there are Webber KERS issues that had impact on both. And mistakes made by Williams and Sauber drivers having impact as well.Then should we also start taking into consideration how easy TR made it for RedBull to lap or overtake into picture potentially making it easier for them to gain points and others to lose points? This is endless and pointless to be honest.

In the end, the luck factor balances out. There was never a better example of it than 2012 season.

Australia: Hamilton's bad pit stop. Vettel gained +3. Monaco: Hamilton's bad pit stop. Vettel gained +2. China: Schumacher retires. Vettel +1. Spa: Crashjean demolishes half the top-10 including Alonso, Hamilton, Maldonado, Perez, who were all quicker than the Bull's in qualifying. Vettel would've been lucky to finish P5. Alonso misses out on potential P2. You say -21. I say +18 for Alonso, -10 Vettel's predicted score, + 18 Vettel's actual score. I say - 26 points. (so +5)Abu Dhabi: Vettel benefits from 2x Safety car as he was in no man's land before he launched an attack on Button. +3 points to what you calculated. I won't say he benefited a lot from the first SC... he ended up with fresh tyres behind backmarkers, while everyone else was one stopping.

No way! Vettel was flying in the race, and he was overtaking all kinds of cars in the bus stop (including cars that were much faster in straight speed). The only one that maybe could have finished ahead of him was Alonso (Hamilton was nowhere with the wrong setup and rear wing). Also Vettel didn't gain any places from the first lap crash, in fact he lost a few.

theodore wrote:

Abu Dhabi: Vettel benefits from 2x Safety car as he was in no man's land before he launched an attack on Button. +3 points to what you calculated. I won't say he benefited a lot from the first SC... he ended up with fresh tyres behind backmarkers, while everyone else was one stopping.

Oh, if we are going to consider the safety cars, it would be a very long list (this wasn't the only race with safety cars, you know). But for the sake of argument, he lost all the places he gained in the first SC period, so it's the same at best. It took him another 10 laps or so losing time behind slower cars to get where he should have been without the first SC. And in the end, he just won an opportunity to pass Button, he still had to do it, which wasn't easy at all with the high top speed of the McLaren, so no free points gained here.

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

Lt. Drebin wrote:

:thumbup: Good analysis for better balance about the Vettel/Alonso season.

Just to humour you two, let's have a second look at Brazil, shall we?

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Alonso, with Hamilton retiring and Hulkenberg dropping behind.

and

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Vettel, with Hamilton retiring. Also, Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean retired while they were ahead of Vettel. So that is five retirements, if I am not mistaken, of some quite tough competitors. How many points do you want to count for those?

Last edited by morgana on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One thing you are forgetting here is that a failed alternator has nothing to do with "luck". Its about Red Bull/Renault not being able to build a car that can finish a race. its not just about the driver but also the team. Alonso being taken out has nothing to do with neither him or Ferrari

By the same token a slower car has nothing to do with "luck" either. It's about Ferrari not being able to build a car that that can compete speed-wise. It's not just about the driver but also the team.

And yet many fans, including Alonso seem to consider Vettel lucky for having a fast car.

All you hear is how Alonso challenged for the title with a slow car and Vettel was barely able to win it in a fast car. You don't hear people saying Alonso had the most reliable car on the grid and still lost to Vettel.

Have you ever heard the phrase "if you want to finish first, you first have to FINISH" A slow and reliable car can finish a race, an unreliable car cant thats the difference

Yes, I've heard it before. But what's your point?

My point is that if you make a car as fast as the light that only lasts 10 laps each race will never win the championship, this has got nothing to do with bad luck, doy ou understand that?

I think you're barking up at the wrong tree here.

Anyway, I understand it has nothing to do with bad luck but I also understand that it has nothing to do with luck at all. Many people fail to do that and insist Vettel was lucky to have Newey or that car. My stance is that either Vettel was lucky to have a fast car and unlucky to have an unreliable one or don't mention luck at all.

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

Just to humour you, let's review Brazil shall we?

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Alonso, with Hamilton retiring and Hulkenberg dropping behind.

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Vettel, with Hamilton retiring. Also, Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean retired while they were ahead of Vettel. So that is five retirements, if I am not mistaken, of some quite tough competitors. How many points do you want to count for those? Shall we say 8?

[quote="morgana"]Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean[quote="morgana"] Are you seriously suggesting that these were going to end ahead of Vettel in the end? He was directly behind Alonso in lap 10 or so for god's sake! Even with damaged car, Vetell was extremely fast in the wet, and when it was wet, had no problems whatsoever to overtake (including Kobayashi, who made it as hard as possible), Massa, Rosberg, etc., so the only guys that could finish ahead of him, finished ahead of him. Alonso gained 6 pts, Vettel only 2 (Hulkenberg was still comfortably ahead of Vettel), so its still 4 points for Alonso.

If it wasn't for the problems in the first lap, which made the car very slow in dry conditions, Vettel would be finghting for the win, he defintely had the pace. In many stages of the race (when it was wet) he was the fastest car on the track by quite a margin.

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

Just to humour you, let's review Brazil shall we?

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Alonso, with Hamilton retiring and Hulkenberg dropping behind.

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Vettel, with Hamilton retiring. Also, Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean retired while they were ahead of Vettel. So that is five retirements, if I am not mistaken, of some quite tough competitors. How many points do you want to count for those? Shall we say 8?

morgana wrote:

Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean

morgana wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that these were going to end ahead of Vettel in the end? He was directly behind Alonso in lap 10 or so for god's sake! Even with damaged car, Vetell was extremely fast in the wet, and when it was wet, had no problems whatsoever to overtake (including Kobayashi, who made it as hard as possible), Massa, Rosberg, etc., so the only guys that could finish ahead of him, finished ahead of him. Alonso gained 6 pts, Vettel only 2 (Hulkenberg was still comfortably ahead of Vettel), so its still 4 points for Alonso.

If it wasn't for the problems in the first lap, which made the car very slow in dry conditions, Vettel would be finghting for the win, he defintely had the pace. In many stages of the race (when it was wet) he was the fastest car on the track by quite a margin.

That you should put Brazil of all races as en example of ALONSO's luck beggars belief. By any kind of logic Vettel should have been out of it on the first lap after the crash he had with Senna, which wrecked the brazilian's car while Vettel didn't even have to go to the pits for a new wing..

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

Just to humour you, let's review Brazil shall we?

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Alonso, with Hamilton retiring and Hulkenberg dropping behind.

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Vettel, with Hamilton retiring. Also, Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean retired while they were ahead of Vettel. So that is five retirements, if I am not mistaken, of some quite tough competitors. How many points do you want to count for those? Shall we say 8?

morgana wrote:

Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean

morgana wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that these were going to end ahead of Vettel in the end? He was directly behind Alonso in lap 10 or so for god's sake! Even with damaged car, Vetell was extremely fast in the wet, and when it was wet, had no problems whatsoever to overtake (including Kobayashi, who made it as hard as possible), Massa, Rosberg, etc., so the only guys that could finish ahead of him, finished ahead of him. Alonso gained 6 pts, Vettel only 2 (Hulkenberg was still comfortably ahead of Vettel), so its still 4 points for Alonso.

If it wasn't for the problems in the first lap, which made the car very slow in dry conditions, Vettel would be finghting for the win, he defintely had the pace. In many stages of the race (when it was wet) he was the fastest car on the track by quite a margin.

Vettel was lucky to still be in the race at that point. He got hit twice by Senna. I've seen suspensions broken for less contact than that.

No way! Vettel was flying in the race, and he was overtaking all kinds of cars in the bus stop (including cars that were much faster in straight speed). The only one that maybe could have finished ahead of him was Alonso (Hamilton was nowhere with the wrong setup and rear wing). Also Vettel didn't gain any places from the first lap crash, in fact he lost a few.

theodore wrote:

Abu Dhabi: Vettel benefits from 2x Safety car as he was in no man's land before he launched an attack on Button. +3 points to what you calculated. I won't say he benefited a lot from the first SC... he ended up with fresh tyres behind backmarkers, while everyone else was one stopping.

Oh, if we are going to consider the safety cars, it would be a very long list (this wasn't the only race with safety cars, you know). But for the sake of argument, he lost all the places he gained in the first SC period, so it's the same at best. It took him another 10 laps or so losing time behind slower cars to get where he should have been without the first SC. And in the end, he just won an opportunity to pass Button, he still had to do it, which wasn't easy at all with the high top speed of the McLaren, so no free points gained here.

I'm thinking that if we're considering Hamilton's (or another's) retirement or a crash as a driver's 'luck', then why not circumstances where McLaren botches their pit stop... or where two drivers run off the course in battle.... what's the line separating these incidents? Very thin if you ask me!

In a 'potential' F1 world, you may aswell reward points after qualifying and not bother racing!

You seemed to have missed the hidden point in my reply. And here it is: This is motor racing! Reliability and skill to avoid collisions is part of the game. There's no point to this analysis... you may argue Vettel 'would've' won by a comfortable margin if... so and so... and I can argue the opposite for Alonso.

The fact remains Vettel won the championship, so we can probably bury the point of what could've been in the past.

That you should put Brazil of all races as en example of ALONSO's luck beggars belief. By any kind of logic Vettel should have been out of it on the first lap after the crash he had with Senna, which wrecked the brazilian's car while Vettel didn't even have to go to the pits for a new wing..

Let me see:

0. Rain conditions (Ferrari and Alonso many times stated that they want rain) - check!1. Vettel makes a decent start but is sqeezed by the ever slow starting Webber (his teammate!) - check!2. Bruno Senna, knowing that this is his last F1 race, has nothing to lose and divebombs in turn 3, trying to overtake 3 cars at once. Vettel's car is badly damaged, engine is turned down, loss of downforce and top speed, RB don't think he can finish the race - check!4. Wrong strategy for Vettel, causing him one more pitstop - check!5. Two laps later Vettel comes in again for the right tires and waits 10 seconds or so to get them because of bad radio communication - check!6. Still, Alnoso has no chance in hell to finish on the podium but then Hulk slides into Hamilton and takes him out - check!7. Hulk is immediately given a drive thourgh, so Alonso can be second - check!8. Alonso loses the car twice in turn one but still manages to join the track - check!

So, yeah, that wash so lucky for Vettel. Please try to be a little bit more objective. I'm the first to admit that Alonso had a hell of a season, but he had a lot of luck too (some bad, but much more good).

I suppose he has mind powers and caused the car failures of Sebastian and Hamilton, which gave him the bulk of his "luck" points

OK let me dumb it down, there's no such thing as luck in Formula One.

The sport is run by people, competed by people, the equipment (cars, etc.) designed and built by people. If some guy's race goes wrong it's because somebody somewhere turnipped up.There is always a root cause.The only single thing outside of their control is the weather. And that is deemed to be the greatest leveller of performance.

superuser wrote:

mcdo wrote:

The one man that was repeatedly in position to pounce when his rivals faltered was Fernando Alonso.

And what position was that? Behind his main competitors (granted, he was 100% where the car deserved to be, but so were Vettel and Hamilton). He didn't deserve these 29 points in any way.

That you should put Brazil of all races as en example of ALONSO's luck beggars belief. By any kind of logic Vettel should have been out of it on the first lap after the crash he had with Senna, which wrecked the brazilian's car while Vettel didn't even have to go to the pits for a new wing..

Let me see:

0. Rain conditions (Ferrari and Alonso many times stated that they want rain) - check!1. Vettel makes a decent start but is sqeezed by the ever slow starting Webber (his teammate!) - check!2. Bruno Senna, knowing that this is his last F1 race, has nothing to lose and divebombs in turn 3, trying to overtake 3 cars at once. Vettel's car is badly damaged, engine is turned down, loss of downforce and top speed, RB don't think he can finish the race - check!4. Wrong strategy for Vettel, causing him one more pitstop - check!5. Two laps later Vettel comes in again for the right tires and waits 10 seconds or so to get them because of bad radio communication - check!6. Still, Alnoso has no chance in hell to finish on the podium but then Hulk slides into Hamilton and takes him out - check!7. Hulk is immediately given a drive thourgh, so Alonso can be second - check!8. Alonso loses the car twice in turn one but still manages to join the track - check!

So, yeah, that wash so lucky for Vettel. Please try to be a little bit more objective. I'm the first to admit that Alonso had a hell of a season, but he had a lot of luck too (some bad, but much more good).

0. Rain conditions.. Ferrari wanted it so that's about the only thing I will agree to and in the end it did not make a massive difference - Check!1. Webber squeezes Vettel: So? RB drivers. What has that got to do with Alonso if they don't know how to behave?!! - Check!2. Bruno Senna Incident. It's quite debatable as to who was at fault there. Ffs even in your OP you mention that it's debatable! Changed your mind suddenly?? - Check!3. You messed up with the numbers on your list - Check!4. Wrong strategy for Vettel - RB's screw ups are Alonsos fault?? Give me a break - Check!5. Another screw up at the RB camp for Vettel's pit stop. Again ALonso's fault? - Check!6. Alonso gains two positions from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg incident. Hmmm.. Surprise, surprise: Vettel gains them too!!!! - Check!7. Hulkenberg gets a penalty not because the FIA want Alonso second but because they considered a penalty was forthcoming, as they have been doing in almost all races this season in similar scenarios. - Check!8. Alonso almost loses it but manages to keep it on the track. It's called skill. - Check!

And regardless of all that you make no mention to the most important factor of all. That crash with Senna should have seen Vettel out of the race. Even Newey said something along that line. But again I guess we know more than Newey don't we? - CHECK!

I think the point of looking at this is that you can conclude Fernando capitalized on the errors and misfortunes of the two faster teams. He was the lead driver in the next fastest car though, which was arguably the most reliable. So wouldn't anyone have been able to do the same? Does that make him a brilliant driver/competitor? That depends on your definition of brilliant driver. The only reason I don't buy into the Alonso hype is that I sometimes feel he sits back and does nothing but wait for others to mess up. There are times where he could push, but doesn't. Yes, he rarely makes mistakes. But if you aren't pushing, you're less likely to make mistakes anyway. I think his driving was more impressive last year, and that his TEAM was massively impressive this season equipping him with a car fast and reliable enough to be there waiting for RBR and McLaren to have a problem. This concludes my Unpopular Opinion Post of the Day.

That saying has never made sense to me. Sometimes you can position yourself in such a way that you can salvage a situation or gain an advantage. Sometimes you can drive with a sympathy that will cause you less failures, or an attitude that will help keep you out of trouble. You can certainly prepare to the point you're leaving very little to luck. But that's not making your own luck, that's making the right judgement calls and doing all you can. Actual luck is something you have no control over. Ultimately there's nothing you can do if someone is intent on Grosjeaning you at the first turn from 8 places away, or the mechanic drops a wheelnut when you're bang on your marks, or the alternator fails when you're leading rather than when you're 6th.

I can believe luck evens itself out and that the right preperation, attitude and decisions can overcome any number of instances we might (erroneously) describe as luck. But you can't make your own luck.

Sorry, that phrase has just always bugged me! I'll shut up about it now.

There is a root cause for everything.

I remember when Button famously got "Grosjeaned" at Spa '09. I immediately pointed the finger at Jenson and said he shouldn't have been qualifying back in 14th when his teammate qualified 4th. It was his own doing.

Your mechanic drops your wheelnut, it's his fault. Luck is not involved. McLaren had serious problems of this nature at the start of the year and reshuffled their pitcrew. All of a sudden they were setting record pitstop times. It balances out in my book.

Your alternator (provided by Renault) fails because your car designer has always been insistent that you run Renault engines. This same car designer is renowned for packaging things very tight. However, this same car designer is one of the major contributors to your repeated success. Balances out in my book.

"You make your own luck" is only a phrase. I use it to explain that there's no such thing as luck.Changeable weather is debatable as that is the one thing outside of human hands. But it has always been seen as the greatest leveller of the field. Brings the driver back into play more than in dry settings. Button doesn't repeatedly win in changeable conditions because of "luck".

What does it matter if its Alonso's fault or not? Grosjean taking out Alonso is not Vettel's fault, so its not a luck for Vettel according to your thinking.

The screw ups of your own team are responsibility of the team itself, there's no 'luck' in that. I could re-phrase that to 'not Alonso's luck' if that makes you happier.

And don't presume to know what I think about the Spa accident. I never mentioned anywhere that it was lucky for Vettel or unlucky for Alonso, it was an accident. End of.

I have never been the kind of person to go on about lucky or unlucky as I think it all evens out more or less. I just found it laughable that you should actually consider Brazil was lucky for Alonso when the biggest 'luck' factor of the day was the Senna accident from which Vettel got away very lightly.

The only reason I don't buy into the Alonso hype is that I sometimes feel he sits back and does nothing but wait for others to mess up. There are times where he could push, but doesn't.

Basically, every time when the end of the season is near and he has a chance of WDC. I can't blame him, after all he win his WDCs in that way but he lost two more for the same reason. After all, everybody is just using their best skills. Alonso is not as fast as Hamilton/Vettel but he is more consistent, at least when he's not under pressure. Under pressure Vettel is definitely better (Alonso doesn't make mistakes but is tame and slower).

I just prefer Vettel's attitude - he doesn't play the number game, he just wants to win, make a fast lap, get a pole, etc. Maybe someday it will lose him a WDC or two, but I don't care.

I just found it laughable that you should actually consider Brazil was lucky for Alonso when the biggest 'luck' factor of the day was the Senna accident from which Vettel got away very lightly.

Okay, now tell me frankly, if the roles were reversed. Alonso in place of Vettel, would you consider Alonso lucky in Brazil 2012? I mean everything - Alonso is 13 points ahead, has an incident in the first lap, damaged car, goes last, team screw-ups and just manages to scrape the championship. Because I'm sure that you would singing him praises for best ever driving after all the bad luck.

I just found it laughable that you should actually consider Brazil was lucky for Alonso when the biggest 'luck' factor of the day was the Senna accident from which Vettel got away very lightly.

Okay, now tell me frankly, if the roles were reversed. Alonso in place of Vettel, would you consider Alonso lucky in Brazil 2012? I mean everything - Alonso is 13 points ahead, has an incident in the first lap, damaged car, goes last, team screw-ups and just manages to scrape the championship. Because I'm sure that you would singing him praises for best ever driving after all the bad luck.

I would consider that yes, had it been Alonso in Vettels situation he would have been lucky to pull it off after such a crash. I don't know how long you have been watching F1 but to come away from something like that practically unscathed is very rare, not only little damage but have no other car also hit you. And if my team screwed up I would not consider it was the other driver's luck, I would be fuming at the idiots that screwed my strategy or that made a mess of a pit-stop.

I don't recall Abu D. 2010 thinking that Vettel was lucky because Ferrari made the wrong call, I thought Ferrari were f%&%& morons!!! Obviously everyone has a different take on things.

I just found it laughable that you should actually consider Brazil was lucky for Alonso when the biggest 'luck' factor of the day was the Senna accident from which Vettel got away very lightly.

Okay, now tell me frankly, if the roles were reversed. Alonso in place of Vettel, would you consider Alonso lucky in Brazil 2012? I mean everything - Alonso is 13 points ahead, has an incident in the first lap, damaged car, goes last, team screw-ups and just manages to scrape the championship. Because I'm sure that you would singing him praises for best ever driving after all the bad luck.

I would consider that yes, had it been Alonso in Vettels situation he would have been lucky to pull it off after such a crash. I don't know how long you have been watching F1 but to come away from something like that practically unscathed is very rare, not only little damage but have no other car also hit you. And if my team screwed up I would not consider it was the other driver's luck, I would be fuming at the idiots that screwed my strategy or that made a mess of a pit-stop.

I don't recall Abu D. 2010 thinking that Vettel was lucky because Ferrari made the wrong call, I thought Ferrari were f%&%& morons!!! Obviously everyone has a different take on things.

Very simple. Let's imagine they both have 100 points each at this point of the championship (just a nice round number, doesn't really matter). If the alternator in RB wasn't gone missing, Vettel would have 125 and Alonso 118, net gain of 7 points for Vettel vs Alonso. As it was, Alonso had 125 and vettel remained at 100 - net loss of 25 for Vettel. The difference between the two scenarios is 32 points for Alonso, all because of the engine failure.

Very simple. Let's imagine they both have 100 points each at this point of the championship (just a nice round number, doesn't really matter). If the alternator in RB wasn't gone missing, Vettel would have 125 and Alonso 118, net gain of 7 points for Vettel vs Alonso. As it was, Alonso had 125 and vettel remained at 100 - net loss of 25 for Vettel. The difference between the two scenarios is 32 points for Alonso, all because of the engine failure.

How can he lose 32 points. When you only get 25 points for a win. The difference may be 32. But that cannot be the points loss.

Very simple. Let's imagine they both have 100 points each at this point of the championship (just a nice round number, doesn't really matter). If the alternator in RB wasn't gone missing, Vettel would have 125 and Alonso 118, net gain of 7 points for Vettel vs Alonso. As it was, Alonso had 125 and vettel remained at 100 - net loss of 25 for Vettel. The difference between the two scenarios is 32 points for Alonso, all because of the engine failure.

How can he lose 32 points. When you only get 25 points for a win. The difference may be 32. But that cannot be the points loss.

But at the end, it's difference in the points that is meaningful for the WDC, not the absolute points. In this case, it's not only that Vettel loses 25 points, he also gifts 7 points to his main competitor. It works both ways.